The case of Atkins v. Virginia involved an 18-year old named Daryl Atkins. After a day of drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana with a friend, the two walked to a convenience store where they abducted an airman from Langley Air Force Base (Paust, 1998). The two men forced themselves into his pickup truck and drove him to an ATM teller where he was forced to withdraw money at gunpoint (Paust, 1998). Atkins and his accomplish then drove the airman to a remote area and shot him eight times. Atkins pleaded guilty to abduction and robbery of the young airman but pleaded not guilty to the murder (Paust, 1998). He was found guilty and sentenced to death. Atkins was determined to be “mildly mentally retarded” by a forensic psychologist (“Atkins,”
…show more content…
They claim that spending time in prison as adolescents may hinder any chance they have at rehabilitation. Gary Scott is a man who is serving 15 years to life in a San Quentin State Prison, for second-degree murder (Scott, 2012). A crime he committed at the age of 15. Scott uses his observations inside the walls of prison to explain what happens to young offenders in prison. Young prisoners more easily succumb to the negative influences in prison, they are overwhelmed by the reality of the time they will spend behind bars (Scott, 2012). Their fear drives them to make connections and seek protection to fit in their new reality (Scott, 2012). These choices can lead to a long stream of bad choice that makes rehabilitation much less likely (Scott, 2012).
The final argument against the juvenile death penalty is that juveniles have a better chance of being rehabilitated when compared to adults. A juvenile offender who has been rehabilitated is beneficial to both the offender and society as a whole. A young offender who serves their time and is then released back into society is far less likely to offend again when compared to a juvenile who has spend their entire young adult life in an adult facility (Reaves, 2001). If a juvenile is rehabilitated and becomes a contributing member of society, money is saved but more importantly a life is …show more content…
The decision to end a life must be absolutely and without question warranted. If society acknowledges and takes mercy on mentally impaired offenders, the same courtesy should be extended to adolescents who experience the same type of diminished capacity. In order for a juvenile to be sentenced to death, they must first be tried as an adult, but they are not an adult. Adolescents don’t have the same brain maturity, emotional maturity or life experience as adults do. The juveniles who commit the crimes that could land them on death row are missing something in their lives. Perhaps they don’t have a support system or someone they can count on, or perhaps they have a mental illness that makes them see things a different way. If a juvenile commits a heinous crime, they should have to pay. However, once a life is gone, there is no do over, there is no chance for rehabilitation, it is the ultimate punishment. There is no doubt that a person, no matter what their age is, should pay for any crime they commit. Opponents of the death penalty for juveniles do not believe the juveniles should not be punished, they believe that the death penalty is a serious sentence that should be given serious consideration. Society expects to be protected from the violent actions of all criminals and that is a valid expectation. In order to keep society safe,
They claim that spending time in prison as adolescents may hinder any chance they have at rehabilitation. Gary Scott is a man who is serving 15 years to life in a San Quentin State Prison, for second-degree murder (Scott, 2012). A crime he committed at the age of 15. Scott uses his observations inside the walls of prison to explain what happens to young offenders in prison. Young prisoners more easily succumb to the negative influences in prison, they are overwhelmed by the reality of the time they will spend behind bars (Scott, 2012). Their fear drives them to make connections and seek protection to fit in their new reality (Scott, 2012). These choices can lead to a long stream of bad choice that makes rehabilitation much less likely (Scott, 2012).
The final argument against the juvenile death penalty is that juveniles have a better chance of being rehabilitated when compared to adults. A juvenile offender who has been rehabilitated is beneficial to both the offender and society as a whole. A young offender who serves their time and is then released back into society is far less likely to offend again when compared to a juvenile who has spend their entire young adult life in an adult facility (Reaves, 2001). If a juvenile is rehabilitated and becomes a contributing member of society, money is saved but more importantly a life is …show more content…
The decision to end a life must be absolutely and without question warranted. If society acknowledges and takes mercy on mentally impaired offenders, the same courtesy should be extended to adolescents who experience the same type of diminished capacity. In order for a juvenile to be sentenced to death, they must first be tried as an adult, but they are not an adult. Adolescents don’t have the same brain maturity, emotional maturity or life experience as adults do. The juveniles who commit the crimes that could land them on death row are missing something in their lives. Perhaps they don’t have a support system or someone they can count on, or perhaps they have a mental illness that makes them see things a different way. If a juvenile commits a heinous crime, they should have to pay. However, once a life is gone, there is no do over, there is no chance for rehabilitation, it is the ultimate punishment. There is no doubt that a person, no matter what their age is, should pay for any crime they commit. Opponents of the death penalty for juveniles do not believe the juveniles should not be punished, they believe that the death penalty is a serious sentence that should be given serious consideration. Society expects to be protected from the violent actions of all criminals and that is a valid expectation. In order to keep society safe,